3. The Order of the Inter-American Court on Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, of May 17, 2010, in which it was decided, inter alia: 1. To clarify the inexistence of an error with regard to the measure of reparation established in paragraph 239 and in the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs of July 6, 2009. 2. To order the State, in accordance with the general conditions established in the Judgment and the additional elements established in Considering paragraph 20 of the […] Order, to publish the cover page, paragraphs 1 to 5, 86 to 117, 125 to 146, 150 to 164, 169 to 180, 194 to 214, and 221 to 247 of Chapters I, VII, VIII, IX and XI of the Judgment, without the footnotes, and the Operative Paragraphs. Said publication must be made within two months of notification of the […] Order. 4. The briefs of November 23, 2010 and December 15, 2011, and their respective attachments, in which the State submitted information regarding compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of December 24, 2010 and the attachment of February 27, 2012, in which the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) forwarded their observations to the information presented by Brazil. 6. The briefs of May 17, 2011 and January 30, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its observations to the information submitted by the State and the observations presented by the representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent attribute of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the "American Convention" or the "Convention") since September 25, 1992 and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 3. In accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, States Parties must comply fully and promptly with the judgment of the Court. Furthermore, Article 68 (1) of the American Convention stipulates that ““[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the State must ensure the implementation, at the domestic level, of the provisions set forth in the Court’s rulings.1 4. The obligation to comply with the Court’s rulings conforms to a basic principle of International Law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 131 and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering paragraph 2. 2